More Occupy Sydney ranting

Last week I had a bit of a rant about the Occupy Sydney (OS) movement. I’ve been stewing over why the Saturday march annoyed me the way it did. I’m think I’m frustrated because I really want it to succeed, and yet locally at least it seems to be doing everything it can to alienate itself from the general public. I’m also frustrated because having read up a little more on its development and decision making process I see the movement as suffering a bad case of the cart pulling the horse – and I don’t see that ending well.

I made the prediction in my last OS post that while ever OS preached a grab-bag of the usual far-left complaints it would suffer the same fate as the recent anti-globalisation movement: irrelevance. While anti-globalisation brought up a lot of very valid complaints individually, the net effect of that confusing mass of ‘anti’ messages – anti-war, anti-consumption, anti-corporatism, anti-neoliberalism, anti-global warming, anti-capitalism and so on – was to unsurprisingly baffle the hell out of the average punter. Each anti-globalisation rally basically became a social day out for the same uber-radicalised Left faces. I should know, I was one of those faces.

Ultimately I believe it was counterproductive because in the public’s mind it associated important issues with poorly articulated, jingoistic-sprouting radicals and pointless clashes with police. There was no bridge to the public, and as such the net effect was to not only tarnish the participants but also the message. I see similar beginnings with the Occupy Movement. It places us in a situation where we have a movement with no concrete demands – hence the cart before the horse analogy. (Admittedly the speed with which it has taken off has no doubt caught a lot of activists off guard.)

On the OS site an article asks the public why they support the movement. At the time of writing this it had 54 responses. Most were articulate, some were quite moving. Recurring themes arose of unaffordable housing, long commute times, trouble finding relevant work or jobs with uncertain stability, and a general discontent that a few had amassed so much wealth. So what vision statement has the Occupy Sydney movement settled on?

We act in solidarity with protests and occupations that have occurred and are occurring in New York and other US cities, Spain, Greece, Egypt and other cities around the world.

We are the 99%.

The system is broken.

A better world is possible.

Human need, not corporate greed!

That’s a unifying statement? Unifying to who? Far-left radicals who speak in over-simplified slogans recycled from the anti-globalisation movement? Are they really the people the OS movement needs to convince? I get that the ‘99%’ slogan is rhetoric, but if the movement genuinely does aim to represent virtually everyone then that includes people who don’t vote Green, who believe in small government, who want welfare spending down, who want tougher laws and harsher sentences and oppose protests. Put simply, statements like those above don’t do that. They employ highly partisan language and empty chants that wouldn’t be out of place on a Resistance t-shirt. In short, the movement appears to speaks to a different 1%.

But what about those perfectly valid issues raised in the ‘Why Occupy Sydney’ responses? There’s nothing partisan about affordable housing or better commute times. I think it’s worth comparing for a moment the OS movement to the Sydney Alliance campaign. Sydney Alliance to those that haven’t heard the name before (NOT to be confused with Socialist Alliance), is a non-political movement based on a community movement in London. London Citizens managed to successfully lobby the city and key businesses to raise the minimum wage to a figure set annually, reflecting a fairer living wage.

I bring up Sydney Alliance because it is an example of a grassroots movement done really, really sensibly – the opposite of OS in other words. It operates on a charter of inclusion and dialogue, rather than confrontation and finger-pointing. The Alliance works like this: its organisers firstly approach a diverse range of community, workplace and religious groups and run workshops in relational networking (aka sharing backgrounds and stories). From these workshops common issues emerge. Alliance members break off into groups to focus on specific issues, and brainstorm proposed solutions. At this point, and only at this point, Sydney Alliance begins a public campaign to address the issues. By this stage it has built a broad coalition of partners, identified pressing community issues, and thought through ways to solve these issues.

Interestingly the issues that are emerging from the Sydney Alliance movement are the same ones that people are bringing up on the Occupy Sydney website. So what’s the moral of this little detour to Sydney Alliance 101? I guess to illustrate that there is an effective, inclusive way to see change through, and an equally ineffective way. I’d just love to see the Occupy Sydney movement utilising a few more methods out of column A, and a few less from column B.

UPDATE: I received a very nice comment the other day from an Occupy Sydney spokesperson that fairly asked if I “have some strategies you think will ‘work’?” It’s a valid question – criticism comes all too easily online. Over the weekend I’ve had a think about the challenges Marlaina raises and jotted down some responses. I’m posting my response here in the article body because, well, I should have included it in the first place along with my criticism.

A – CLARIFY THE MESSAGE: Much hay has been made in the media that the Occupy movements in Australia don’t have a clear message, and represent concerns that aren’t directly relevant to Australia. Addressing this should be a matter of priority.

Develop a survey quizzing supporters on their concerns and the issues related to the Occupy movement they feel are most pressing. Make the survey available in person and online (easy enough with gDocs). Collect as many results as possible and study the feedback. Identify the recurring concerns.

Before writing off our democratic system completely as ‘broken’, try to use the avenues available within it to raise the issues (letter/email campaign, 10,000 signature petition, etc).

Give all Occupy Sydney media spokespeople talking points before actions. Make sure they can articulate the aims of the movement in a few clear, inclusive, positive sentences using bipartisan, slogan-free language. Stay on message and don’t allow other campaigns to piggy-back on the Occupy movement (ie. NT Intervention, free Gaza, etc).

B – BROADEN THE SUPPORT: You’ve got the radicalised 1% on board, now try to capture some support from the other 98%

Compile a list of influential community, religious and business groups (yes, business – they were hit hard in the GFC remember). Invite representatives of each along to a listening day where you just hear their concerns. Get RSVP’s, hire a hall, provide refreshments. Don’t talk during the day, just listen.

Afterwards look back over notes of each groups’ concerns, similar to the survey step above. Consider common ground between their concerns and the Occupy movements (which you’ve by now clarified). Draft a letter individually to each group that attended highlighting this common ground, stating that you wish to campaign publicly on their concerns, and would appreciate their presence at future actions.

Be nice to the police: they’re part of the 99% as well and are only doing their jobs. Hell, maybe some of them support your aims. Antagonising the authorities with speeches decrying ‘police brutality’ or yelling ‘Nazi f***ers’ to their faces (both of which I saw on 5th November) is counterproductive and tempts a heavy-handed response. To which everyone outside the movement will think you deserved. Do the police have concerns of their own? What are current police union campaigns? Can they be integrated into the Occupy movement? Obey all police directions. If you witness inappropriate police behaviour record it and file complaints or legal action through official channels.

C – MANAGE YOUR IMAGE: Be aware of how the movement is portrayed in the mainstream media, and fair or not every action by every Occupy participant reflects on the movement. The anti-carbon tax rally in Canberra was widely ridiculed by the public and press because of several offensive banners. Don’t be so naive as to think the Occupy movement will be judged by a separate set of standards.

Keep all official press releases, online and print media jargon-free and politically neutral (I think you’ve been doing a great job on the latter but not the former). Don’t refer to vague notions like ‘big business’, ‘the state’ or ‘capitalism’.

A few seconds of news footage of a scuffle with police undoes hundreds of human hours of positive, unreported work. The riot police may be spoiling for confrontation but don’t give it to them. The Occupy movement has infinitely more to lose by conflict and arrests than the riot police. Make it clear at the start of actions what type of behaviour is unacceptable. Use marshals to keep actions on-route. If conflict does break out between protesters and police, deescalate tensions as quickly as possible. If this proves too difficult publicly distance the movement from the violent protesters and make it clear this type of behaviour is completely unwelcome at actions.

Remember the people the movement claims to represent and have the self-awareness to realise how the movement looks from the outside. The Masterchef-watching, Liberal or Labor voting majority aren’t going to be impressed if they see symbolic funerals, giant Che flags, street theatre or inarticulate humanities students poorly representing the movements’ case on the nightly news.

Confound expectations. Get more suits involved. Shallow admittedly, but it presents an image jarringly at odds with the crude (and incorrect) public perception of the unwashed, dreadlocked, unemployed protester. Present well when publicly representing the movement.

13 comments

I see no reason not to allow OS the space that it has made….I mean, surely the jury (if we’re going to make ourselves that) can still be out on what ‘sensible’, ‘effective’ grassroots organising looks like, what a social movement looks like, what democracy looks like, and/or how social change happens?

Absolutely Ana, it was never my intention to question the legitimacy of the OS movement, nor yours or anyone else’s right to protest. I stand by everything I’ve written though. My observation from what I’ve seen and read is that this movement will go the way of the anti-globalisation movement and the dinosaur unless it radically changes tack. I don’t think the tactics used to date are resonating with the average punter, and the message continues to be a confusing muddle of legitimate concerns mixed with recycled Resistance slogans. You’re right: I don’t know what social change looks like. I’ve got a vague theory it involves popular, bipartisan support though, and that this support isn’t going to ever be won with street theatre, attempts to occupy private property, or far-Left recruitment drives.

Hey, you do raise interesting points. Do you have some strategies you think will ‘work’? There are many strategies being employed that you may not be aware of because so much of it happens, quietly, ground roots, off-line, in person. The engagements even at the info desk at Martin Place are incredibly moving and stimulating. There seems to be a need for people to feel that Occupy needs to be 100% organised right away and in a ‘predictable’ or ‘familiar’ manner.
When you have hundreds, and then thousands of people trying to coordinate themselves outside of existing organisational structures, you are bound to spend some time learning about what works. You spend time negotiating relationships and boundaries, at the same time as discussing goals and values. Maybe we need more people like yourself to participate, who seem passionate?
My sister says, whats the difference between a perceived notion and an actualised notion?

Hi Marlaina! Thank you for taking the time to respond to the post, it’s always great to hear feedback and debate. Rather than responding here directly to the first question, I’ve updated the blog post body with my (lengthy) reply.

I understand the complexities of the movement. I don’t envy you, representing a movement without a clear chain of command, striving to be as democratic and inclusive as possible. I think we can all appreciate decision-making is made infinitely more difficult the more people are involved.

That notwithstanding, I still believe any protest movement needs to ask itself:

* What does it [the movement] stand for?
* How can it make a difference?

To answer both of those I think you need concrete goals. The overthrow of a dictatorship. Reducing carbon emissions by 50%. Removing discrimination in our legislation. A movement with energy but no actual real-life goals is a movement adrift. It’s a whole lot of energy and goodwill that ultimately changes nothing. It’s not a pointless experience – it is encouraging, can create some momentary debate, and results in a lot of worthwhile interactions – but it is a squandered opportunity.

“My sister says, whats the difference between a perceived notion and an actualised notion?”

I haven’t heard of these terms before. I’m guessing they are along the lines of the difference between what the media and public think the movement is versus what the movement actually is. It’s an interesting point. No, it’s not fair that the perceived notion carries far more weight than the actualised notion. (Am I using these terms the right way?) Fair or not it’s the reality of the way events are covered, and you need to be aware of how best to get an accurate message out there, and of the sort of actions that harm the perceived notion of the movement. I personally think most of the mainstream reporting I’ve seen has been quite generous to date. I also think that if what I saw on the 5th November was repeated you risk losing that goodwill very quickly.

I’ll drop by to an event after work one of these evenings and say ‘hi’! I’m keen to see how the movement is evolving, how I can help out and whether my criticisms are unfair.

I think the danger for me in the occupy movement as it stands for Sydney at least is first of all there isn’t any acceptance of the personal role ALL consumers everywhere play in making an unequal system.

Secondly, beyond the slogan rhetoric and lack of discernible message, beyond the lack of ability to gain support or buy in from the average person, by choosing to blame other members of society for problems (common language about police as fascists, bankers as greedy and continual sledging of people who for whatever reason say “what about this…” as opposed to thinking and considering as consumers, capitalists, ill-informed) doesn’t mean a peaceful movement towards equal footing for all. It sounds more like a group of people unhappy with the current structure who desire more power for themselves at the expense of another group.

How can you possibly ask society to reform itself when a) self realisation of ones own role in other people’s poverty and problems isn’t freely acknowledged and b) the stance is to demonise any opponent as a faceless symbol? It sort of smacks of the “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” way of thinking.

How can anyone possibly say they are looking for a “better society” when they are already placing definitions, barriers and creating hierarchy within their own dialogue that pretty much mirrors what is already there? How is a minority group (I mean maybe 4000 twitter followers and 300 people at meetings) who are already carving up people into labelled groups based on their jobs (police, banker, CEO, politician) followed by subsets (consumer, capitalist) in a derogatory way expecting people to respond to their movement positively when its all about self praise and affirming their own version of segmentation and bias against everyone else who doesn’t agree? How is that different to 1% of the population having power over the rest? Isn’t it just the desire to simply subvert who the power brokers are for their own desire to be in power?

Wow, you’ve just summed up most of my issues with the Occupy movement far more eloquently and in about a tenth of the words, Concerned. I couldn’t agree more. As you say the language, the divisions, the views of society do not bear the hallmarks of a truly inclusive movement. The optimist in me wants to conclude that with a ‘yet’, but the realist sees this panning out just like the anti-globalisation movement. By staking claim to the ‘99%’ slogan the Occupy movement certainly has built itself a very large cross indeed – I just hope they can drop the divisive lingo and attitudes soon before they’ve completely alienated the non-believers.

I also want to say what you are saying is not unknown to people in occupy sydney and is discussed at lengths by many in occupy. we are aware of many of the imperfections – its a very new movement with many different types of people and views and I feel more consideration needs to be given to this challenge. I think we also need to talk more and learn more before we can set out the ‘goals’ so demanded by a lot of people. I blog about this a lot as well. I don’t think that taking the GA as at all indicative of the work that is being done is a good idea – the GA is basically the administration side and is not where the best stuff happens. If you have any specific questions, I am happy to answer them as an individual involved.
P.s. we have a petition and are collecting signatures. the media team is fucking amazing – the work we have done to get opinion pieces in SMH and Daily Tele and other places is great. Media team is particularly inclusive, articulate and non-partisan (I am part of it).
Totally agree with managing image, but also have to be aware of not stifling people. Most are aware we need to solidify Occupy ‘brand’ – though i hate the word brand. Remember this is a 3/4 week old movement which we expect to grow over months and years. Taking time is okay, ground roots, slowness is okay. Its not your usual protest or get-up style issue based support platform. Anyway…. I am glad you are writing these things because it helps me understand how to engage better, as an individual, with others. Though so far I am doing a pretty awesome job 🙂

I mean the GA signing off on people having the right to protest in their own manner, and then the 5 people who broke into private property to squat. How is a flat form structure without leadership meant to maintain a situation where it cannot be hi-jacked by a fringe agenda? Take for example the Brisbane anti-inoculation speech and the damage that did… How do you propose to ensure fringe elements with their own personal causes and/or issues are not aligned with what you do even if you don’t support it?

Also, I would like you to address my points above if that’s OK in the previous comment I made. I have spent a considerable amount of time reading about this movement worldwide, coming to rallies to gain a sense of it and feel as though it leans more towards an anti-capitalist movement as opposed to a Zeitgeist movement of re-establishment, and am concerned about the dismissive language used by groups such as Anonymous and other splinter groups that appear not to approach this as a movement of actual restructured peace and equalisation but as the need to overthrow the current power structure to replace it with another.

I’ve seen a lot of language in Aus that isn’t about empowering and more about disempowering… and I just cannot see the discernible difference. What would you say to that?

Oh, and please don’t take this as being thrown onto the back foot, but I want a genuine answer. It’s become tiresome to hear how the movement is only in its infancy and so on. You’ve decided to stand for something with a group of people and you will come under much heavier fire than my own questions. Give it your best shot- I won’t tear your head off but I have to be honest and say I won’t respect a sidestep. 🙂

Happy to elaborate on these points as an individual, though must say I won’t answer anything demanded of me as I can sure you will appreciate 🙂 Will need to do so in next few days after balancing work and my studies.

I agree, you’re doing an awesome job Marlaina! You represent the movement well and your comments come across as reasoned and calm in the face of some pretty heavy criticism.

“we are aware of many of the imperfections – its a very new movement with many different types of people and views and I feel more consideration needs to be given to this challenge. I think we also need to talk more and learn more before we can set out the ‘goals’ so demanded by a lot of people.”

With respect, all the talk in the world won’t come to nought without a structure in place to collect, analyse and prioritise the feedback, hence my suggestion of a survey. That’s not a way of trampling on people’s grievances or marginalising them in the movement – it’s a way of hearing them out in an efficient, documented manner. Once collated you present the most common issues at a public meeting and vote on which to act on. Done. I’m sure you’ve got academic researchers on board – get them on the case!

“Its not your usual protest or get-up style issue based support platform.”

I disagree. I’ve seen all these issues before presented in a similar fashion by the anti-globalisation movement. It failed to show strong leadership and failed to develop concrete goals. I believe in large part because of these factors it failed to make any progress on any of the issues. I really would hate to see the Occupy movement go that way too.

Yes, you’ve got thousands of supporters each bringing their own concerns to the party. But that’s no excuse not to work towards say 3 or 5 common, achievable goals. I brought up the example of Sydney Alliance in my post because that’s a movement where every participating group has a different set of concerns. You’ve got the Jewish Board of Deputies working alongside the Arab Council. Each participant is clever enough to realise that together they can achieve change if they set aside their specific issues and work towards common goals. Perhaps their individual issues will all eventually be addressed. Probably not. But mark my words, through this process Sydney Alliance will create meaningful change. I hope Occupy Sydney can too.

I think the issues that ‘Concerned’ laid out in the earlier post also hold true, and I’m yet to see the Occupy movement respond to them convincingly.